[+]goatboy0 points3 points3 points
ago
(edited ago)
[–]goatboy0 points
3 points
3 points
(+3|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
Why not both?
Proximity favors opportunity. So set aside all questions one might have about motive in this death for a moment and circle back to those questions after all questions about proximity and opportunity have been answered.
What would this woman's proximity to Huma or others have actually or likely provided her?
Answer: without knowing more about their relationship it is likely the dead woman would have accumulated explicit evidence (such as CCTV recordings of her property) as well as inadvertent cell phone pictures, recordings, mundane physical evidence (skin cells, hair, pieces of clothing, chewing gum, cigarette butts dropped on patio, foot prints, finger prints, soda cans with saliva and prints, etc.) Of powerful world leaders with potentially time indicative stamps attached to much of the evidence. That is powerful, and potentially dangerous, Intel to clever people.
What would this woman's divorce have provided in terms of opportunity?
Answer: she would have incentive to manipulate husband for her own advantage in the divorce proceedings. If she possessed Intelligence information or evidence linking her husband to nefarious activities, she might have threatened blackmail to improve her situation. That might or might not have worked on her husband, but the other person tied to the nefarious activities might have become aware of the evidence and chose to act independently.
Who else was in the vicinity of this apartment complex at time of murder?
Answer: security footage will know comings and goings. If murder was premeditated, then killer may have laid in wait for a 12-15 hours before, but would have evacuated quickly after securing known evidence. If body shows signs of pre-death torture, then evidence likely obtained before death. If no pre-death torture, then murder was spur of the moment startle, rage kill, or undefined.
[–] goatboy 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago (edited ago)
Why not both?
Proximity favors opportunity. So set aside all questions one might have about motive in this death for a moment and circle back to those questions after all questions about proximity and opportunity have been answered.
Answer: without knowing more about their relationship it is likely the dead woman would have accumulated explicit evidence (such as CCTV recordings of her property) as well as inadvertent cell phone pictures, recordings, mundane physical evidence (skin cells, hair, pieces of clothing, chewing gum, cigarette butts dropped on patio, foot prints, finger prints, soda cans with saliva and prints, etc.) Of powerful world leaders with potentially time indicative stamps attached to much of the evidence. That is powerful, and potentially dangerous, Intel to clever people.
Answer: she would have incentive to manipulate husband for her own advantage in the divorce proceedings. If she possessed Intelligence information or evidence linking her husband to nefarious activities, she might have threatened blackmail to improve her situation. That might or might not have worked on her husband, but the other person tied to the nefarious activities might have become aware of the evidence and chose to act independently.
Answer: security footage will know comings and goings. If murder was premeditated, then killer may have laid in wait for a 12-15 hours before, but would have evacuated quickly after securing known evidence. If body shows signs of pre-death torture, then evidence likely obtained before death. If no pre-death torture, then murder was spur of the moment startle, rage kill, or undefined.